FLM films - My Webpage

1996-04-24 00:00:00 - April 29th Episode - (vic33@usa.pipeline.com)


Tom finds himself back in the hospital where it all started.... but in this asylum, THE DOCTORS ARE INSANE!!! (this was part of the teaser for next week's episode. Looks like a good old-fashioned Larry Hertzog type episode!!) Vic33@usa.pipeline.com http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~vic33/ **** FIGHT CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET**** ---->>>> WATCH UPNs "NOWHERE MAN"!! <<<<---- Visit the PDX.MOVIES newsgroup!

1996-04-24 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (larryh@interramp.com)


>(this was part of the teaser for next week's episode. Looks like a good >old-fashioned Larry Hertzog type episode!!) Idea yes, execution, well -- don't count on it. This begins the "new" NwM. Larry

1996-04-24 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On Apr 24, 1996 06:28:36 in article <Re: April 29th Episode>, 'larryh@interramp.com (Larry Hertzog)' wrote: >>(this was part of the teaser for next week's episode. Looks like a good >>old-fashioned Larry Hertzog type episode!!) > >Idea yes, execution, well -- don't count on it. This begins the "new" NwM. > >Larry FANTASTIC! It's about time. I've been waiting for the "new" NwM. The thing that has really pissed me off about the lame "old" NwM is that Veil didn't have a hip, fast-talking, street-smart black sidekick. I don't think Ice-T will let us down. Absolutely fantastic. *This* is going to give the series much-needed momentum for next season. Maybe they can also add a comedic Woody Allen-like character, part-schlemiel, part-mensch, to feed them leads and information over the phone. Kind of pseudo-Wiseguy with a twist. And the bad guys won't smoke cigars. No, instead of popping some cheap dime-store puppies in their mouths, they can pop out something from a Pez-dispenser. Then, right before they ask, "Where are the negatives?", they can speak the new catch phrase which will sweep the country: "Care for a Pez?" Cool. "New" NwM, here I come. -Alan Tucker-

1996-04-24 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (larryh@interramp.com)


>FANTASTIC! It's about time. I've been waiting for the "new" NwM. The >thing that has really pissed me off about the lame "old" NwM is that Veil >didn't have a hip, fast-talking, street-smart black sidekick. I don't >think Ice-T will let us down. Absolutely fantastic. *This* is going to >give the series much-needed momentum for next season. >Maybe they can also add a comedic Woody Allen-like character, >part-schlemiel, part-mensch, to feed them leads and information over the >phone. Kind of pseudo-Wiseguy with a twist. >And the bad guys won't smoke cigars. No, instead of popping some cheap >dime-store puppies in their mouths, they can pop out something from a >Pez-dispenser. Then, right before they ask, "Where are the negatives?", >they can speak the new catch phrase which will sweep the country: "Care >for a Pez?" >Cool. "New" NwM, here I come. Alan, I wish you were kidding. Unfortunately I won't be around during May to hear the public opinions of the last four shows. The clue-heads just might like the last two but for my money, I'm watching Nick at Nite now. Larry

1996-04-24 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On Apr 24, 1996 20:24:00 in article <Re: April 29th Episode>, 'larryh@interramp.com (Larry Hertzog)' wrote: >Alan, >I wish you were kidding. Unfortunately I won't be around during May to hear >the public opinions of the last four shows. The clue-heads just might like >the last two but for my money, I'm watching Nick at Nite now. >Larry Larry, I wish I was kidding, too. It's a shame "Them" slowly dismantled a great production. And, in a way, "Them" is also "Us". Guess I'm one of the few who is not "Us". For the very little it's worth, thanks for the memories. And that ain't vacuous, drooling fan-boy, cult of celebrity thanks. Unfortunately, except for my tape of "Through a Lens Darkly", I'll *only* have memories, since your show will never be available on video. Again, that is a real shame. Well, maybe that won't necessarily be the case. Maybe, shortly after Martin Lawrence is elected to be our 50th president, there will be a Prisoner-like revival. Which won't benefit me or you, since we'll both be too busy playing practical jokes on our nurses, ramming them in their keesters while playing "bumper car" with our wheelchairs. And my drooling will have absolutely nothing to do with being a fan-boy. But hey, Nick at Nite sounds good, too. A few cold beers, some smooth full-bodied Cubans blessed with Fidel's personal seal of approval, and Bob Newhart. And no clue-heads invited. Sounds like a primo evening to me. -Alan Tucker-

1996-04-25 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (larryh@interramp.com)


>But hey, Nick at Nite sounds good, too. A few cold beers, some smooth >full-bodied Cubans blessed with Fidel's personal seal of approval, and Bob >Newhart. And no clue-heads invited. Sounds like a primo evening to me. Alan, Sounds good to me. As for Fidel's blessing, it just drives up the price. I'll take the same smokes with our without it. Thanks for hanging in with us. Larry

1996-04-25 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (msl@gumby.oup-usa.org)


Larry Hertzog wrote: >As for Fidel's blessing, it just drives up the price. And consider this: Just what kind of "blessing" *would* Fidel give? (shudder) Mark Steven Long (This is a personal message.)

1996-04-25 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (jlhatch@postoffice.ptd.net)


>>Cool. "New" NwM, here I come. > >Alan, > >I wish you were kidding. Unfortunately I won't be around during May to hear >the public opinions of the last four shows. The clue-heads just might like >the last two but for my money, I'm watching Nick at Nite now. > >Larry BTW, great post Alan. But Larry, since you're not returning to NwM, (and it sounds like you're mentally really outta here for the rest of the season), do you know who's going to head it up? Joel Surnow possibly? Jeff "No, but they're worth *living* for!" Hatch

1996-04-26 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (larryh@interramp.com)


>But Larry, since you're not returning to NwM, (and it sounds like you're >mentally really outta here for the rest of the season), do you know who's >going to head it up? Joel Surnow possibly? Next season is still in the "if" stage. "IF" that happens, I doubt that any of the current staffers will head up Nowhere Man. I know that Art has had some talks about staying on, but certainly no one who's been involved in the season has the ability to know the show enough to head it up (right? well, that's "themthink). To the best of my knowledge, the studio is currently interviewing people from the "list," names of writers presumed to be capable (a few actually are). They'll probably present the "new Nowhere Man" to UPN and see if they get a bite. As for Joel, I think he's made other plans entirely. Larry

1996-04-27 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On Apr 26, 1996 21:39:02 in article <Re: April 29th Episode>, 'larryh@interramp.com (Larry Hertzog)' wrote: >>But Larry, since you're not returning to NwM, (and it sounds like you're >>mentally really outta here for the rest of the season), do you know who's >>going to head it up? Joel Surnow possibly? > >Next season is still in the "if" stage. "IF" that happens, I doubt that any >of the current staffers will head up Nowhere Man. I know that Art has had >some talks about staying on, but certainly no one who's been involved in the >season has the ability to know the show enough to head it up (right? well, >that's "themthink). > >To the best of my knowledge, the studio is currently interviewing people from >the "list," names of writers presumed to be capable (a few actually are). >They'll probably present the "new Nowhere Man" to UPN and see if they get a >bite. > >As for Joel, I think he's made other plans entirely. > >Larry Larry, I did not realize they were planning a complete purge. Frankly, I'd rather just read a detailed synopsis from you of what would have been, renewal or not. Picket Fences pulled the plug before sweeps. They should do the same here. Screw the clue-heads. Wish I could be a network executive for a day. Not only has a great show lost its voice, it's losing nearly all of the remaining body parts. Why don't they just put Jeffrey Dahmer at the helm? At least *somebody* will enjoy the leftovers. Or is he precluded by the fact he will be appearing as a "special guest star" in the season finale? This is really sad. Yes, even more sad than when I saw Willie Mays play for the Mets. As a creative matter, when your tree fell in the forest, I heard it loud and clear. As a business matter, it looks like some people really sawed-off your stump and jammed it straight up your you know what. Enjoy your vacation. I see why you need it. -Alan Tucker-

1996-04-30 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (maskdmirag@aol.com)


If larry is telling the truth about leaving then I hope Laryy@interramp.com is a fake:)

1996-04-30 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (besnode@earthlink.net)


In article <4lkhmd$gjp@usenet4.interramp.com>, larryh@interramp.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: > >(this was part of the teaser for next week's episode. Looks like a good > >old-fashioned Larry Hertzog type episode!!) > > Idea yes, execution, well -- don't count on it. This begins the "new" NwM. > Just FWIW, Larry, I liked the 4/29 episode. I'm VERY sorry to hear that you're leaving the series, though. I doubt it will survive long without you. Thanks for what you've given us so far. --Paul -- Paul Suliin & Michele Cox | I distrust those people who know so well POB 1993 | what God wants them to do, because I San Gabriel, CA 91776 | notice it always coincides with their 310/719-9097 | own desires. | -- Susan B Anthony

1996-04-30 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (puddintame@aol.com)


In his apparently pathological quest to alienate everyone, Alan Tucker said: >"Screw the clue-heads" Hey, I think I resemble that remark. As do most of the posters on this group. <Looking around> Are we in the right place?

1996-04-30 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (wb8foz@netcom.com)


Ugh. It was AWFUL. Manditory car chase. I'll enjoy reruns this summer & then I don't care. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433

1996-04-30 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (pisrael@crl.com)


David Lesher (wb8foz@netcom.com) writes: > Ugh. > It was AWFUL. > Manditory car chase. > I'll enjoy reruns this summer & then I don't care. Unfortunate! I felt like this was a broken show. The first 30-40 minutes were actually fairly interesting; Tom moved to the middle way, pushed into the role of Dave Powers; Tom seeing what waits for him in Novick; Tom taking away Novick's life just as surely as They took away his (what makes him think his past is anymore real than Novick's?). Some interesting cinematography (the long shot across the pool was very nice). Tom acting dumb as usual by pushing his was into harm's way. BUT!!! Not only the stupid stupid car chase and the slapped together denouement, but the unbelievable way JC came back--basically, everything from the Great Escape! The disgusting thing was, there was so much promise and it was all squashed by stupid TV-dom. If the show had been all so bad, I wouldn't have felt so hurt by how it turned out. Perry, just venting. -- Perry Israel | "That does not keep me from having a terrible need of Sacramento, CA | --shall I say the word--religion. Then I go out at pisrael@crl.com | night to paint the stars." --Vincent van Gogh

1996-05-01 00:00:00 - A Question from the beginning - (smoot2@ix.netcom.com)


I have a question. At the beginning of the season, when TV started figuring out what was going on, he mailed a whole bunch of stuff to a whole bunch of places with the designation "General Delivery -- Hold For Pickup." I have the follwoing questions that I have not been able to answer on my own: 1. What negatives were those? Did he have more than one copy of the HA negatives, or was it just more film that he shot? 2. If it is more negatives, why doesn't The Conspiracy know about it? 3. Has he visited those towns, and if so, has he picked up the negatives or whatever it was he mailed? I think that's it, but any help on this would be appreciated. BTW, I liked the 4/29 episode, but I'm weird. :) -- Peace and Be Wild Chuck -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rebellion Continues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1996-05-01 00:00:00 - Re: A Question from the beginning - (puddintame@aol.com)


In article <4m6h00$e40@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, smoot2@ix.netcom.com(Chuck) writes: >I have a question. At the beginning of the season, when TV started >figuring out what was going on, he mailed a whole bunch of stuff to a >whole bunch of places with the designation "General Delivery -- Hold >For Pickup." I have the follwoing questions that I have not been able >to answer on my own: > >1. What negatives were those? Did he have more than one copy of the >HA negatives, or was it just more film that he shot? I always assumed he mailed the negatives to whichever town his next destination would be to prevent them from being stolen en route.

1996-05-01 00:00:00 - Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On Apr 30, 1996 18:31:33 in article <Re: April 29th Episode>, 'puddintame@aol.com (PuddinTame)' wrote: In his apparently pathological quest to alienate everyone, Alan Tucker said: >"Screw the clue-heads" Hey, I think I resemble that remark. As do most of the posters on this group. <Looking around> Are we in the right place? You resemble that remark? Since I have no idea what you look like, I don't know if you are talking about the screw or the clue-head. Just what is your deal, Puddin? The post was not directed at you. The name "PuddinTame" was nowhere to be found. I have asked you on three separate occasions to stop these posts. Why do you have this insatiable need to act like a schmuck? (By the way, in point of fact, the term "clue-head" was originally coined by Piper. I mean Larry. It was not coined by me. I liked it so much, I decided to use it. Sort of like the guy who liked the Remington shaver so much, he bought the company. You should be insulting Piper. I mean Larry). No, what has really rubbed me the wrong way was not your plethora of asinine accusatory "Larry is really Piper" posts. It is not your opinions of the show. It is not your incessant clue-hunting. There are many who think the clues *are* NwM. If that's what gets you off, and is your idea of quality entertainment, fine. It's not mine, and I think it ruins the show, but that's my personal taste. Apparently, it's not yours. Fine. No, the problem lies within the fact you relish the ad hominem flame. With a passion. I especially resent it, since my posts are rarely, if ever, directed at you. In fact, until you started these repeated inflammatory personal attacks, they were NEVER directed at you. My opinions and arguments are usually just commentaries regarding NwM and television in general. And because NwM is shown on television, with all of the intellectual trappings of the medium, (not to mention the ratings trappings of the medium), you really can't intelligently discuss one without touching upon the other. There is a direct correlation. I often have very strong opinions and arguments. It goes without saying that strong opinions and arguments will often provoke strong opposing points of view. No problem. Hopefully, they will lead to interesting discussions. If everybody had the same opinions and points of view, this would be a pretty dull planet. Not to mention a pretty dull newsgroup. No, the problem is rather than countering my opinions or arguments with reason, you ALWAYS delete the entire post, take the most inciting words totally out of context, and use these words as an excuse to attack my character and appeal to prejudices and emotions rather than the validity or reasoning behind my opinion or argument. In fact, you NEVER address why you are pro, con, or indifferent. In fact, you NEVER address the opinion or argument at all. And you have done this over and over and over and over again. You have continued this repeatedly, even after I asked you to take your behavior to e-mail. Well, there's really not much I can do about it. You're not going away, and despite my repeated appeals, your inflammatory ad hominem posts are not going to cease. I guess I'll just continue to deal with it. I can again implore you to confine your venom to e-mail, but why bother? Right? -Alan Tucker-

1996-05-01 00:00:00 - Re: April 29th Episode - (Steve Chenault <SChenault@worldnet.att.net>)


>David Lesher (wb8foz@netcom.com) writes: > > Ugh. > > > It was AWFUL. > > > Manditory car chase. > > I'll enjoy reruns this summer & then I don't care. >BUT!!! >Not only the stupid stupid car chase and the slapped together denouement, >but the unbelievable way JC came back--basically, everything from the >Great Escape! The disgusting thing was, there was so much promise and it >was all squashed by stupid TV-dom. If the show had been all so bad, I >wouldn't have felt so hurt by how it turned out. I know what you mean. This episode was awful. We've been left hanging so long, and then in about two minutes, everything was confirmed. The show became radically different. The confirmation shouldn't have come and was poorly done. Also, allowing JC to see his file, then the conversion was completely out of character. The car chase scene was even worse. This definately was not in the same league with the "Old NwM." John

1996-05-02 00:00:00 - Re: A Question from the beginning - (vic33@usa.pipeline.com)


On May 01, 1996 23:05:20 in article <Re: A Question from the beginning>, 'puddintame@aol.com (PuddinTame)' wrote: >I always assumed he mailed the negatives to whichever town his next destination would be to prevent them from being stolen en route. ---->>> If you rewatch the first episode, you'll see him addressing several or more envelopes to different destinations across the USA. He also may have dropped these into a fake mailbox (watch closely!!) The mailbox moves like a cardboard prop (which it probably was)... but They may have all the negatives he thought he mailed. -- Vic33@usa.pipeline.com http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~vic33/ **** FIGHT CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET**** ---->>>> WATCH UPNs "NOWHERE MAN"!! <<<<---- Visit the PDX.MOVIES newsgroup!

1996-05-02 00:00:00 - Re: A Question from the beginning - (vic33@usa.pipeline.com)


On May 01, 1996 02:06:56 in article <A Question from the beginning>, 'smoot2@ix.netcom.com(Chuck)' wrote: >BTW, I liked the 4/29 episode, but I'm weird. :) >-- > You're not alone in your weirdness... I also liked "Calaway." Thought it was better than episodes such as "Alpha Spike" and "Dark Side of the Moon." Vic33@usa.pipeline.com http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~vic33/ **** FIGHT CENSORSHIP ON THE INTERNET**** ---->>>> WATCH UPNs "NOWHERE MAN"!! <<<<---- Visit the PDX.MOVIES newsgroup!

1996-05-03 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (puddintame@aol.com)


In article <4m6e2r$1pr@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, alantuck@usa.pipeline.com(Alan Tucker) writes: >Just what is your deal, Puddin? The post was not directed at you. Oh...so then who are the "clue heads" you're referring to? > Why do you have this insatiable need to act like a schmuck? Why do you have this apparent insatiable need to hurl gratuitous insults and vulgarities(You DO know what "schmuck" means in Yiddish don't you?) >what has really rubbed me the wrong way was not your plethora of asinine >accusatory "Larry is really Piper" posts Mighty kind of you considering I never said anything like "Larry is really Piper"...I might have made insinuations so if this is the impression you got at least I know I made a persuasive argument :) > the problem lies within the fact you relish the ad hominem flame. With a passion Is "ad hominem flame" a new fragrance by Calvin Klein? it sounds like a commercial. Oh, when are you going to forsake YOUR version of reality and join the rest of us. Ad hominem flames? Any "incendiary" comments I have may have made were strictly in reply to your posts. Check it out...I wouldn't just a message out of the blue insulting people for no reason. By cracky, when I insult someone I have a reason! <crowd roars> If I call you a "nut" in response to a scathing, unwarranted, and disproportionate attack you made on someone who simply asks "Whyw eren't we told about Laura before TALD?" it's not an "ad hominem" attack, it's a retaliation! <"When Johnny Comes Marching Home" plays in background>Pot. Kettle. Black. Pot. Kettle. Black. Pot. Kettle. Black. Nyeah Nyeah Nyeah Nyeah Nyeah Nyeah >I often have very strong opinions and arguments. It goes without saying that strong >opinions and arguments will often provoke strong opposing points of view. Uh huh...but strong opinions and arguments need not be phrased in insulting tirades. Oh, alright, I concede...you're a master debater(Can I SAY "mastur debator" on the internet?) >No, the problem is rather than countering my opinions or arguments with reason, you >ALWAYS delete the entire post, take the most inciting words totally out of context Uh huh...and when you re-respond you don't bother to put these words("c**** s****ers", "moron", "jerk", "schmuck") back into context for us. Please feel free and set me straight. >and use these words as an excuse to attack my character and appeal to prejudices >and emotions rather than the validity or reasoning behind my opinion or argument. Attaboy I KNEW you wouldn't use a phrase like "ad hominem" without looking it up first! >You have continued this repeatedly, even after I asked you to take your behavior to >e-mail. Hah that's like asking me to take a barroom argument into a dark back room. I much prefer to keep these matters public in frontg of plenty of witnesses. You just don't strike me as the type who fights fair. O:) > I guess I'll just continue to deal with it. Margaret Dumont would be proud of you. >I can again implore you to confine your venom to e-mail, but why bother? Right? Right. P.S. The Secret Word WAS "schmuck" so the duck flies down and awards you an exploding cigar.

1996-05-03 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (Greg Wheeler <whee3659@nova.gmi.edu>)


Pardon my intrusion (I am pretty new here), but you guys need to sit out a couple rounds. I think most of us want to discuss Nowhere Man, not your bickering.

1996-05-03 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On May 03, 1996 15:08:39 in article <Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up>, 'Greg Wheeler <whee3659@nova.gmi.edu>' wrote: >Pardon my intrusion (I am pretty new here), but you guys need to sit out a >couple rounds. I think most of us want to discuss Nowhere Man, not your >bickering. Greg, *That* was the point of my post. Please read it. I keep asking for exactly what you have just posted, he keeps ignoring my requests. I keep asking him to confine it to e-mail, he keeps posting it. The kid has a serious problem. Since you're new around here, I guess you have also missed the endless months of his "Larry who"? posts, in which he alleges Hertzog's posts were phony, and originated from somebody else associated with the show. Your loss. Anyway, I would love to discuss the show. The good and the bad. And, I guarantee this "PuddinTame" character will follow-up this post with some form of personal attack, either subtle or otherwise. He usually precedes them with "...And Alan Tucker spewed while wearing kneepads:", or something similarly idiotic. Like the post says, he's won't stop, so I (and you, if you're unfortunate enough to be added to his list of targets) will have to continue to deal with it. It is a major irritant, but that's the reality of Usenet. The good, the bad, and the extremely ugly. -Alan Tucker-

1996-05-05 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (sandra.jones@aquila.com)


Greg Wheeler <whee3659@nova.gmi.edu> wrote: >Pardon my intrusion (I am pretty new here), but you guys need to sit out a >couple rounds. I think most of us want to discuss Nowhere Man, not your >bickering. > Greg, I don't know if the "boys" will ever change. Sometimes we just have to put up with little inconveniences in life. ;-) Sandra

1996-05-06 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (puddintame@aol.com)


In article <4mdo2v$f25@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, alantuck@usa.pipeline.com(Alan Tucker) writes: >I keep asking him to confine it to e-mail, he keeps posting it. Oh...so this must be your idea of e-mail. :) >Since you're new around here, I guess you have also missed the endless months of >his "Larry who"? posts, in which he alleges Hertzog's posts were phony, and >originated from somebody else associated with the show. Again I must intrude upon your reality with the facts. The "Larry" who?! posts(the position of the quote marks is important) had nothing to do with the debate over the piper posts and in fact predated the infamous piper post in question. As far as the piper vs. larryh situation, I never alleged anything about the true identity of the person posting the messages, I only suggested a possibility that should be considered. >Anyway, I would love to discuss the show. Well, when are you going to start? > I guarantee this "PuddinTame" character will follow-up this post with some form of >personal attack, either subtle or otherwise Yes, we all know that you would NEVER launch into any personal attacks. Anyway, I hate to disapoint, so: Do you inflate your OWN head each morning or do you hire a professional to do it for you? ba dump bump! And as for you, Greg Wheeler, I apologize that I have failed to make Mr. Tucker see the error of his ways. At this point it seems clear that he's from the everyone's-poopoo-smells-but-mine school. I suppose I'm guilty for perpetuating this thread but I don't feel it's right to have propaganda go unchallenged. I like to think my posts speak for themselves as does Mr. Tuckers. A simple reading of them will show you who is here to discuss the show and who is here to discuss themselves.

1996-05-07 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On May 06, 1996 19:18:37 in article <Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up>, 'puddintame@aol.com (PuddinTame)' wrote: >In article <4mdo2v$f25@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, >alantuck@usa.pipeline.com(Alan Tucker) writes: > >>I keep asking him to confine it to e-mail, he keeps posting it. > >Oh...so this must be your idea of e-mail. :) > >>Since you're new around here, I guess you have also missed the endless >months of >his "Larry who"? posts, in which he alleges Hertzog's posts >were phony, and >originated from somebody else associated with the show. > >Again I must intrude upon your reality with the facts. The "Larry" who?! >posts(the position of the quote marks is important) had nothing to do with >the debate over the piper posts and in fact predated the infamous piper >post in question. As far as the piper vs. larryh situation, I never >alleged anything about the true identity of the person posting the >messages, I only suggested a possibility that should be considered. > >>Anyway, I would love to discuss the show. > >Well, when are you going to start? > >> I guarantee this "PuddinTame" character will follow-up this post with >some form of >personal attack, either subtle or otherwise > >Yes, we all know that you would NEVER launch into any personal attacks. >Anyway, I hate to disapoint, so: >Do you inflate your OWN head each morning or do you hire a professional to >do it for you? > >ba dump bump! > >And as for you, Greg Wheeler, I apologize that I have failed to make Mr. >Tucker see the error of his ways. At this point it seems clear that he's >from the everyone's-poopoo-smells-but-mine school. I suppose I'm guilty >for perpetuating this thread but I don't feel it's right to have >propaganda go unchallenged. I like to think my posts speak for themselves >as does Mr. Tuckers. A simple reading of them will show you who is here to >discuss the show and who is here to discuss themselves. Puddin who?

1996-05-09 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (alantuck@usa.pipeline.com)


On May 09, 1996 01:46:47 in article <Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up>, 'exile@zot.io.org (Ash)' wrote: >In article <4mcsqg$5h0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, >PuddinTame <puddintame@aol.com> wrote: >>In article <4m6e2r$1pr@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, >>Hah that's like asking me to take a barroom argument into a dark back >>room. I much prefer to keep these matters public in frontg of plenty of >>witnesses. You just don't strike me as the type who fights fair. O:) > >I think you're missing the point here. He doesn't *want* to engage you in >this exchange of verbal abuse. Taking this to e-mail would allow him to just >ignore you completely while not worrying about having you defame him publicly >(and no, I don't think he's planning to defame you either...). > >This way, you get to rant on and he gets to rant on and neither of you has to >worry about what others think about the two of you. Or maybe that's not what >you want...? > >Ash. Thanks, Ash, I sincerely appreciate the post. You're right, I don't want to engage in an exchange of verbal abuse with him, at least in the newsgroup. I've tried to ignore him. Over and over and over and over again. However, I've really gotten tired of asking him to take it to e-mail. After a less than pleasant day, or a less than pleasant night, I don't want to come home and read a personal attack. As pathetically lame as they are. I'm sick of it. Ignoring him just doesn't work. And after literally four requests imploring him to take it to e-mail, and him actually having the chutzpah to post a refusal after the last request, he'll now reap what he's sowed. (Did I just say that?) Anyway, after a few pointed barbs, along with people like you pointing out the obvious, maybe he'll get the message. Doubt it, though. This guy is as thick as a brick. -Alan Tucker-

1996-05-09 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (exile@zot.io.org)


In article <4mcsqg$5h0@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, PuddinTame <puddintame@aol.com> wrote: >In article <4m6e2r$1pr@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>, > >>You have continued this repeatedly, even after I asked you to take your >behavior to >e-mail. > >Hah that's like asking me to take a barroom argument into a dark back >room. I much prefer to keep these matters public in frontg of plenty of >witnesses. You just don't strike me as the type who fights fair. O:) I think you're missing the point here. He doesn't *want* to engage you in this exchange of verbal abuse. Taking this to e-mail would allow him to just ignore you completely while not worrying about having you defame him publicly (and no, I don't think he's planning to defame you either...). This way, you get to rant on and he gets to rant on and neither of you has to worry about what others think about the two of you. Or maybe that's not what you want...? Ash. -- :: exile@io.org ::: http://www.io.org/~exile/ :: ftp.io.org/pub/users/exile :: ::::::::: "I'm a Ninja warrior now, mother." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: -- Richard, from "Caroline in the City" ::::::::::::::::

1996-05-09 00:00:00 - Re: Wish His 10 Free Hours Were Up - (puddintame@aol.com)


In article <4ms0s7$car@zot.io.org>, exile@zot.io.org (Ash) writes: >He doesn't *want* to engage you in >this exchange of verbal abuse. You don't know him very well, do you? :)